From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f214.google.com ([209.85.217.214]:53059 "EHLO mail-gx0-f214.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753073AbZFTApm convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:45:42 -0400 Received: by gxk10 with SMTP id 10so3449445gxk.13 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:45:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A3BC8EC.6040801@gmail.com> References: <1245363695-8289-1-git-send-email-kilroyd@googlemail.com> <1245363695-8289-3-git-send-email-kilroyd@googlemail.com> <646765f40906181638j39d8e8eex8ead9d856b5f2548@mail.gmail.com> <4A3BC8EC.6040801@gmail.com> From: Julian Calaby Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:38:03 +1000 Message-ID: <646765f40906191738l74cfc45dn25618f402cd21a3d@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/23] cfg80211: Advertise ciphers via WE according to driver capability To: Dave Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, orinoco-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 03:20, Dave wrote: > Julian Calaby wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 08:21, David Kilroy wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: David Kilroy >>> Acked-by: Johannes Berg >>> --- >>>  net/wireless/wext-compat.c |   15 +++++++++++++-- >>>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c >>> index 9e56f35..7dbe6c6 100644 >>> --- a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c >>> +++ b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c >>> @@ -204,8 +204,19 @@ int cfg80211_wext_giwrange(struct net_device *dev, >>>        range->avg_qual.noise = range->max_qual.noise / 2; >>>        range->avg_qual.updated = range->max_qual.updated; >>> >>> -       range->enc_capa = IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA | IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA2 | >>> -                         IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_TKIP | IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_CCMP; >>> +       range->enc_capa = IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA | IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA2; >> >> Should this should go into the for loop too, like how patch 5 works? > > Err... patch 5 moves this line into the for loop. I moved these in > separate patches because: You know, it does. Argh! This is what you get for not reading the patches properly. > As it happens, no-one has objected (yet). Hmm, yes. > Apologies if I've completely misunderstood you. No, you haven't. Sorry for the noise. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/